|
No. 131654
| Mather Investors, LLC, d/b/a Mather Nursing |
|
Randolph B. Osstyn |
| Center, |
|
|
Plaintiff-Appellant, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Marquette - Weber, J.) |
|
|
| William Larson, |
|
Bruce L. Houghton |
Defendant-Appellee, |
|
|
| and |
|
|
| Alice Maddock, |
|
|
| Defendant. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellant's Application for Leave to Appeal>>
Plaintiff-Appellant's Supplemental Brief>>
Defendant-Appellee's Brief in Opposition to Leave to Appeal>>
Background
Alice Maddock resided at Mather Nursing Center; Medicare paid for her care from her admission in June 2002 until August 2002, at which time she became a private pay patient. On July 22, 2002, Maddock transferred her savings account to her nephew, William Larson. In October 2002, when she owed the nursing home about $11,000, Maddock also transferred two real estate parcels to Larson by quit claim deed. A week before Maddock died at the nursing home in August 2003, the nursing home sued her and Larson to recover an outstanding debt for Maddock’s care; the nursing home claimed in part that Maddock fraudulently transferred her assets to Larson. Maddock was not served before her death; Larson answered the nursing home’s complaint, attaching a copy of Maddock’s death certificate; Maddock was dismissed from the lawsuit for lack of service. The nursing home did not petition the circuit court to open an estate for Maddock or seek to add her estate as a party by a June 14, 2004 deadline set by the court. Both parties moved for summary disposition, with Larson arguing that the case against him must be dismissed. His aunt’s estate was a necessary party to the lawsuit, Larson argued, contending that the nursing home would be unable to obtain a judgment against him without including Maddock’s estate. The nursing home argued that the court should enter a judgment in its favor, asserting that Larson had admitted during his deposition that he had no evidence to dispute the nursing home’s fraudulent transfer claim. But the circuit judge denied the nursing home’s motion, reasoning that Maddock’s estate was a necessary party. The judge also later denied the nursing home’s motion to substitute the estate as a party; the trial judge found that Larson has been prejudiced by the nursing home’s delay in making the substitution. In a published authored opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed. The nursing home appeals.
Top of Page
|
